Isabella Freeman, the council’s £115,000 a year head of legal, has been something of town hall phantom in recent weeks. Her presence has been felt in the colder and gossipy corridors of Mulberry Place, but as a physical form, she’s not really been seen.

This morning, however, as daylight broke over Anchorage House opposite the town hall, she reappeared–and the three large bags of files she was carrying gave us a clue as to what she’s been up to during her time off work on full pay.

It’s not unusual for a lawyer to be at an Employment Tribunal, of course, but this being Tower Hamlets, there’s always a catch. Ms Freeman, who has recently returned to work, is not defending the council against an aggrieved employee (and there have been plenty of those over the years): this time, she’s the one suing.

The exact details of her case are still unknown because today’s hearing, as Judge Jonathan Ferris himself worried, was “a public hearing in secret”. Due to what even the judge said was a convenient alliance between Ms Freeman, the council and their respective lawyers, the public gallery was barred from seeing any of the witness statements and other documents that were constantly referred to and read quietly during the three hours of legal wrangling.

It means I can’t tell you what Ms Freeman is actually complaining about.

That said, Judge Ferris, who has seen all the documents, sighed he’s pretty much none the wiser either.

“I’m struggling to understand where the thrust of the claimant’s case is,” he said in answer to a request by the council’s barrister John Bowers QC to have the case struck out.

Mr Bowers said: “The claimant is a senior lawyer and she is being advised by a QC. We were expecting some feeling of what this case was about. It should not go to trial because it’s chaotic.”

Ouch! “Chaotic”, “feeble”? Anyone who’s had the pleasure of receiving an ever-so-measured and carefully proofed email threat from Ms Freeman will surely know that accusation is really, really just not fair.

And that’s what her barrister Peter Oldham QC said as well. “That’s not fair. We feel we have a strong case.”

Well, he’ll get his chance to improve it. Judge Ferris ruled against the council’s ‘striking out’ application and set a hearing date for late autumn.

So, what is the case all about? Ms Freeman feels she has been discriminated in some way and her complaint is very much connected to the incorrect legal advice allegedly given to the human resources committee during last year’s costly failure to appoint a new chief executive. A fuller account of that can be read here, here and here.

Mayor Lutfur Rahman’s team have claimed the failure to appoint regeneration director Aman Dalvi has already cost the council in excess of £100,000.

If Ms Freeman is successful, that figure will rise massively. As well as engaging John Bowers QC, who is regarded as one of the country’s top barristers in employment, the council has also hired the biggest (and possibly most expensive) name in employment law for local government: Mark Greenburgh of Wragge & Co solicitors (and a former leader of Buckinghamshire County Council). Talk about aiming howitzers at their own head of legal..

I have to say as a Council Tax payer I have to ask what on earth is the legal and financial justification for the Council
1) on the one hand asking for the case to be struck out – presumably because it is completely feeble and without merit; and
2) hiring “the biggest (and possibly most expensive) name in employment law for local government” to fight the case on the Council’s behalf

Isn’t there a contradiction in there somewhere?

OK – can we now start the sweepstake for how much information is going to leak before the Autumn re:
* what Ms Freeman knows which has kept her in the employment of LBTH for far too long (the proverbial “who knows where the bodies are buried” question) given her career history and the fact she has managed in the past to behave in ways which are completely unlike other senior local government lawyers of my acquaintance
* what exactly has precipitated this case
* who’s going to “cop it” at the end of the day

Let the moles start digging!

I’m minded to say that the only reason I can think of as to why this was a “public hearing in secret” is that it must relate to the employment terms and conditions and/or disciplinary processes of an individual and legal and binding contracts relating to the terms of past payoffs which must never ever be spoken about……..

At a rough guess – and it is only a guess – I’d say the Council wants to fire her for some reason (eg maybe for providing incompetent advice which has cost them a big sum of money?) – and on that basis does not propose to honour her contract of employment re “letting her go” on the basis she’s breached it and hence does not deserve a penny.

I’d love to know whether you can “sue” your employer without first exhausting all the internal disciplinary processes – and I don’t think you can so I’m assuming these have already occurred.

Any advance on my hypothesis?

Of course those who might not want people to speculate about what’s going on at the taxpayer’s expense (as a matter of public interest) should reflect on why they didn’t manage to avoid arriving at this situation in the first place.

The defendant’s applicant to chuck-out the claimant’s case MUST have been based on the defendant’s knowledge of the claim (gained before the matter reached court if pre-action letters detailing the grievance were served) and also from the claimant’s Statement of Claim created before she started her action in a court of law.

Why would an experienced solicitor, meaning the claimant Isabella Margaret Freeman, who became a solicitor 22 years ago on 15 January 1991 and whose declared specialities as a practising solicitor are:

Francais
Administrative and public law
Civil litigation
Employment law

submit an incomplete pleading to the Court ?

The claimant chose the exact date her claim would be submitted to the court yet failed to ask for extra time, it seems.

Usually the Statement of Claim proves a good summary of the claim’s merit but not, it seems, on this occasion. ‘An Observer’ claims “not yet been fully pleaded due to confidentiality”. Strange the alleged ‘confidentiality’ didn’t prevent the filing of the claim with the court.

I’m sure curious readers will be interested to know exactly who was “observing” yesterday’s proceedings.

In the tribunal room were: the judge; Ms Freeman and her barrister Peter Oldham QC; the council’s lawyers Mark Greenburgh and John Bowers QC; the council’s head of HR Simon Kilbey and another representative from or for the council sitting next to him; a reporter from East End Life (we look forward to thatstory this Sunday…); Cllr Peter Golds; me; and another journalist.

I’m v doubtful any of the QCs and the highly regarded solicitor would bother making that kind of comment on this blog, and neither would the hacks there, so that kinda narrows down the people who would have knowledge of the detail, doesn’t it…

So ‘An Observer’, re-read my post, see the bit about the council losing its application to strike out, and tell me the judge did not criticise your Ms Freeman’s case.

So how much is this going to cost us tax-payers this time. I am absolutely disgusted with this administration. In the last few years as a result of their sheer incompetence and mal-adminstration, LBTH has paid out hundreds of thousands of pounds to employees and ex-employees. Under Lutfur, as leader of the council and now as mayor, senior managers within the council have now been paid out over a £1million…..disgraceful.

They bang on about the impact of the Tory cuts (which I think is wrong), but their incompetence is costing us millions on top. Wonder how many extra teachers, social workers, advice workers or other front-line services this money could’ve been used for instead of paying out to senior council officers suing the council.

Ted, any chance you can compile a list of these payouts, golden handshakes and the other costs with recruitment/headhunters and share with us?

Lutfur and his gang ARE responsible – they have created a big huge mess in the Town Hall. It’s one thing after another. As the saying goes…..the buck stops with him. If he was a effective leader and had the leadership skills and qualities, he would’ve compromised and found a suitable way forward and took people with him, instead of leaving the council without a Chief Exec and then the subsequent legal challenges. Their vendetta and personal battle is what caused this. I’m in no way saying Labour is not to blame either.

– They appointed a inexperienced and unsuitable Asst. Chief Exec, who turned out to be moonlighting and therefore scamming the council – how much did that whole saga cost the council
– They have a mass exodus of senior officers leaving the council, resulting in then all the costs associated with recruiting to these posts.
– The reputation cost to the borough is huge – its comparable to Hackney in the 80s, where no one wanted to go near that borough.

In truth its not Lutfur who is running the council – its his IFE masters via Alibor Chowdhury who are running the council.

I get the feeling that the actual public – the taxpayer – as opposed to the self-interested politicians maybe also ought to get some kind of representation of their public interest in the level of expenditure of taxpayers’ money on this hearing. After all we’re the mugs who are paying for it.

Don’t anybody try and suggest that the Council’s representations will be speaking on behalf of the public of Tower Hamlets! The profligacy of the current Cabinet (expenses etc) has already amply demonstrated they really don’t give a stuff about how taxpayers’ money is spent. They wouldn’t know what leadership by example on financial matters is if it bit them on the proverbial!

That’s not to say that the Judge won’t have an opinion on that matter. In fact I’m rather hoping he will have.

Reblogged this on Sundial Centre Shipton Street and commented:
What’s going on here – the council being attacked legally by the head of their own legal services – she must know what she’s doing – and they must be worried of the outcome to bring in such big guns.

I think there should be a referendum on whether people actually want an elected council in Tower Hamlets or a Mayor… what have they ever actually done other than fill their pockets and divide communities? I would vote for a Sir Humphrey to run this borough remotely…

Grave Maurice has an excellent suggestion: A Public Referendum on whether the extravagant Mayoral Circus should be scrapped and plain ordinary councillors should run the council.

I’m sure me and all my dead accessors should be able to register for votes at generous Tower Hamlets (the Postal Voters friend) despite being buried in far away countries.

What I don’t understand is why Isabella Freeman is suing LBTH when she is supposed to be the mayor’s enforcer (henchman/henchwoman) and LBTH is being run (or abused) by the mayor and his gang. Isn’t Isabella effectively suing her own boss, the mayor ?

I’m just confused. Perhaps its time I wandered back to Henley and stick my toes in the gently flowing river.

I was going to respond YES but now I am unsure about that date which originated from someone else.

According to the London, East (also known as East London) Employment Tribunal there are two cases of Freeman v LBTH.

Cases 320 3084/2012 and 320 1103/2013. The second case is linked to the first case.

There is no sign of any hearing on 12 November 2013. There is an 8 day hearing due to commence on Tuesday 13 August 2013. Precise starting time available on the previous day otherwise the general starting time is 10:00 hours.

which states (but unfortunately omits TAXI information so essential to the presence of the deputy mayor)

“By Road

Anchorage House sits adjacent to the A13 and Aspen Way, giving dual carriageway access within 10–15 minutes west to the City and east to London City Airport and the A406 (North Circular Road). It is also adjacent to the A102 (M) Blackwall Tunnel approach.

The Employment Tribunal assures me the case file is in “typing” (where there is a backlog). When the file returns to the office the dates will be revised on their computer system. Officially the hearing is still 8 days starting on 13 August 2013.

Actually it will be 8 days starting on, as Ted confirms, Tuesday 12 November 2013.

Will the hearing room be sufficient large to accommodate the parties, the press, and the public including our friend ‘An Observer’ ?

At last some real excitement comes to Tower Hamlets; admission is free. What astonishing secrets will be revealed ?